Former Conviction Or Acquittal; Double Jeopardy

Section 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another 
prosecution; exception

   - An order sustaining a MTQ is not a bar to another
     prosecution for the same offense

     EXCEPTIONS: When the ground for the MTQ is any
     of the following:
     1. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
     2. Double Jeopardy

Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy

1. No person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the SAME OFFENSE
2. When an act punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
   acquittal under either shall be a bar to another prosecution for
   the SAME ACT

   - There is identity between two offenses not only when the second
     offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the
     second offense includes or is necessarily included in the
     first offense or is an attempt or frustration thereof

     1. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts
        arising out of the same act or omission constituting the
        former charge
     2. The facts constituting the graver offense became known or
        were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former
        complaint or information.
     3. The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the
        consent of the prosecutor and the offended party

1. first jeopardy must have attached
2. first jeopardy must have been terminated
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second
   offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged
   in the first information or is an attempt or frustration thereof.

1. valid complaint or information
2. court of competent jurisdiction
3. valid arraignment
4. valid plea
5. the defendant was acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed
   without his express consent or authority.

NOTE: In order to raise double jeopardy for the SAME ACT, there must
be an acquittal or conviction. For double jeopardy for the SAME OFFENSE
it is sufficient that the case was dismissed without his express consent.

Perez vs. CA, 163 SCRA 236 (1988)
   - If a single act is punished by two different laws, but each
     requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not
     require, conviction or acquittal in one will not bar a prosecution
     for the other.

     Ex. Violation of BP 22 and Estafa

Double Jeopardy will not apply in case of a conviction of a crime under
a special law, which also constitutes an offense under the Revised Penal
Code. This is because the former is malum prohibitum, while the latter
is mala in se.

In order for double jeopardy to attach, the judgment must be reading
its entirety (promulgation of judgment). If only the dispositive portion
is read, then double jeopardy will not attach.

Test for “Valid Complaint or Information”
   - In general, if it can support a valid conviction. This means that
     all the necessary elements of the crime are alleged.

What is controlling for purposes of determining the presence of double
jeopardy is the crime charged in the complaint not the crime proven
in trial.

Dismissal vs. Acquittal
1. Dismissal - Does not decide the case on the merits, does not determine
   defendant’s guilt or innocence.
   Acquittal - Always based on the merits. Defendant is acquitted bec.
   guilt wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Dismissal - Double Jeopardy will not always attach.
   Acquittal - Double Jeopardy always attaches.

1. Demurrer to evidence
2. Dismissal due to violation of right to speedy trial (even if
   dismissal was upon motion of the accused or with his express consent)

Rules Regarding “Without Express Consent”
   - If dismissal was upon motion of the accused or counsel, such is
     deemed to be with defendant’s express consent.

     Silence of the accused does not mean consent.

     Statement of “no objection” is express consent.

Rules Regarding State Witnesses
   - An order discharging an accused as a state witness amounts to an
     acquittal, hence double jeopardy will apply.

     However, if he fails or refuses to testify against his
     co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement,
     he may be prosecuted again.


Popular posts from this blog

Criminology Board Exam Reviewer Question Answer

SSS Paternity Leave Benefits

Personal Identification Reviewer

Criminal Law Book 1 Reviewer

PDEA Recruitment